RUBY SOCORRO P. FIRMAN, SALVACION FIRMAN AND ALBERTO FIRMAN, PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. ISMAEL S. CRISANTO, RESPONDENT.

Ruby Socorro P. Firman of Malita, Davao del Sur in her verified complaint dated November 15, 1974 charged respondent lawyer with
immorality for allegedly having carnal relations with her, when she was below
eighteen years of age, although he was a married man.

However, in a handwritten letter dated December 2, 1974,
addressed and airmailed to the Chief Justice, Ruby revealed that she signed the
complaint due to the pressure exerted by her father with the assistance of
lawyer Saturnino Parcasio
and Judge Renato Fuentes and that the contents of her
complaint were false, being “the product of the imaginations” of her
parents and lawyer Parcasio.  She asked that the case be dropped.

Notwithstanding that letter, Ruby and her parents filed a
verified petition dated April 23, 1975
for respondent’s disbarment.  It was
alleged therein that the respondent, a relative and family lawyer of the
complainants, seduced Ruby and cohabited with her in Digos,
Davao del Sur.

The respondent in his answer denied the charge.  The case was referred to the Solicitor
General who asked the provincial fiscal of Davao del Sur to receive the evidence and submit the corresponding
report.

Alberto Firman, Ruby’s father (he is a
high school graduate), in his affidavit of March 24, 1976, declared that his
daughter is already married to another man and that due to the persistent
entreaties of the respondent, he (Firman) decided to
withdraw and drop the complaint for disbarment and that he was expressing his
appreciation for the attention given by this Court to his complaint.

At the hearing on the same date (in respondent’s absence), the
fiscal took Firman’s sworn testimony in the presence
of his wife.  He reaffirmed the contents
of his affidavit of desistance and further alleged that his wife and daughter
were in conformity with the withdrawal of the complaint.  They had mulled over the matter for sometime
and they had decided to adopt a “forgive and forget” attitude.

At the subsequent hearing before the investigating fiscal on April 28, 1976, the respondent (in
the absence of the complainants) took exception to certain allegations in
Alberto Firman’s affidavit of desistance.  The respondent insisted that the case be
dismissed on the basis of Ruby’s handwritten letter of December 2, 1974.

The Solicitor General recommends that the case be dismissed
because the desistance of the complainants had rendered it difficult to
investigate the charge and because there is no evidence to substantiate it.

Finding that recommendation to be well-taken, this case is
dismissed and considered closed.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., and Santos, JJ., concur.